A Name Brand May Be Better For Dog's Food

August 24, 1985|By Mary Daniels, Chicago Tribune

Generic dog food may not be a good nutritional choice for your pet, according to a recent test of 78 generic samples. Of these, 65 samples, or 83 percent, failed to meet National Research Council standards for one or more of the seven critical nutrients analyzed.

Further, 51 percent of the products failed to meet their own guaranteed label analyses for protein, fat or fiber, the study found.

Though the study was commissioned by the Purina Pet Care Center in Gray Summit, Mo., its results were deemed so significant that the study is being heralded independently by Michigan State University.

MSU spokesman Dr. James Dalley said the university sent out a press release on the study because the information was important enough that consumers should know about it.

''One of the things that seems apparent is that nobody's minding the store when it comes to the quality of these generic products,'' Dalley said. ''This food is made to compete at a price.''

Dalley said that the Association of American Federal Control Officials, a labeling regulatory group, is understaffed for the amount of enforcement it faces. ''This proves it is possible to get away with stuff in the labeling if you don't have a commitment to quality, but to price,'' added Dalley, who said he was ''alarmed at what was found in this study. It does kind of shake your confidence in labels.''

''I suspect that as a result of this you may see some more analyses done and you may see some product withdrawals in some states. The deficiencies from the label contents were too pronounced to go unchanged.''